The Bench dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 376 IPC. It held that the case does not constitute a fit case for exercising writ jurisdiction at this stage.
Writ Petition dismissed; proceedings not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
913-WP-1513-18.odt
1 / 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1513 OF 2018
Dr.Ajay Rajman Singh .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2018.
P.C. :
the proceedings being Case No.730/PW/2018 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, arising out of C.R.No.478/17 registered with the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable u/s 376, 506(II) and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Nesarikar
2 / 2 913-WP-1513-18.odt
the material, which has been placed along with the chargesheet. Considering the fact that the offence is one u/s 376 of IPC, we do not deem this is a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at this stage.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC at this stage.
Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and chargesheet warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Ajay Rajman Singh
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
R. M. SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
